Rupert Murdoch faces shareholder revolt at News Corp annual meeting

Source: The Guardian

Shareholders have stepped up their campaign to remove Rupert Murdoch as chairman of News Corporation ahead of the media company's annual meeting this month.

Hermes, a British fund manager that controls £24.8bn assets, joined an action on Wednesday launched by dissident shareholders seeking to oust News Corp's chairman in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal.

Glass Lewis, one of the largest shareholder advisory groups, has also recommended its clients vote for the appointment of an independent chair. This is the second year that major shareholders have rounded on Murdoch and his board.

Hans Hirt, global head of corporate engagement at Hermes, said: "While we acknowledge the recent board changes made by the company, News Corp has still not sufficiently addressed the significant shareholder concerns about its board structure and corporate culture highlighted at last year's annual meeting. The time is right for the company to appoint an independent chair in order to rebuild trust, and ensure that the interests of all investors are more properly represented."

4. News Corporation Shareholders Meeting: Much Ado Might Not Add Up to Much

News Corporation will be holding its annual meeting Tuesday on the Fox studio lot in Los Angeles and there will be several efforts by large shareholders to diminish Murdoch family control, citing the hacking scandal in England.

But efforts to use the scandal to loosen the Murdochs’ grip on the company will likely fail for several reasons: First and foremost, Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, has delivered financial results for shareholders, with shares rising 44 percent in the last year, in part due to a $5 billion stock buyback that Mr. Murdoch once resisted.

And even if the business results weren’t remarkable, there isn’t a great deal that unhappy shareholders could do about it. Even though the family owns 13 percent of the equity in the company, it controls 40 percent of the voting stock. In addition, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the Saudi investor and a strong supporter of the Murdochs, owns seven percent of the voting stock. So substantive changes are unlikely to take place.

But that doesn’t mean that everyone will go along quietly. Both CalPERS and CalSTRS, two large California pension funds, have publicly stated that they will be voting against the re-election of Mr. Murdoch and his two sons, Lachlan and James, to the board of the media company; they were joined in that effort by the fund managers Hermes and Legal & General. And the Christian Brothers Investment Services has offered a shareholder resolution calling for Mr. Murdoch to give up his chairmanship of the board.

5. Rupert Murdoch at News Corp AGM - live coverage

A motion to have an independent chairman has failed, as well as a motion to eliminate the company's two-tier voting structure, which helps perpetuate Murdoch family control. Rupert Murdoch owns about 12% of the shares, but has 40% of the votes.

Rupert Murdoch confirms that all directors have been elected to the board for another year.

10. News Corp shareholders are revolting

12. Rupert Murdoch faces down shareholders at News Corp's AGM

Rupert Murdoch told shareholders they could take their money elsewhere if they did not like the way he runs News Corp as he sailed through his second meeting with investors since the hacking scandal tore through his media empire.

At the company's annual meeting in Los Angeles the chairman and chief executive announced he had seen off moves by dissident shareholders calling for him to appoint an independent chairman. He also blocked a move to end a dual-class share structure that allows him to control the company by owning the largest chunk of voting shares.

The victories were no surprise given that the arrangement gives him control of 40% of the voting shares in the company. Newscorp is expected to release the details of how many independent shareholders voted for Murdoch to step down.

I can only assume that those who chose to buy shares with no voting rights in News Corp are not a full 10 cents - or shilling as we would say in the UK. Must've been perfectly obvious they didn't those rights in most cases.